Smoking bans

Will casinos every be smoke free in the next 20 years? Yet another study out showing 2nd hand smoking killing tens of thousands per year. How many studies do we need?! 50,000 a year die from 2nd hand smoke in just the USA. That is 136 a day. I already know 2 non-smokers who have died from 2nd hand smoke. Imagine one fully loaded 737 with 136 aboard crashing every day. How many crashes before FAA would ground all 737s? My guess would be 3 tops.

Quote: Tommy

Will casinos every be smoke free in the next 20 years? Yet another study out showing 2nd hand smoking killing tens of thousands per year. How many studies do we need?! 50,000 a year die from 2nd hand smoke in just the USA. That is 136 a day. I already know 2 non-smokers who have died from 2nd hand smoke. Imagine one fully loaded 737 with 136 aboard crashing every day. How many crashes before FAA would ground all 737s? My guess would be 3 tops.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_he_me/us_med_smoking_bans

I can't imagine casinos willingly going smoke free. Smoking is an addiction as is gambling and your degenerates are more likely to smoke. Getting rid of smokers would hurt the casinos profit. Personally I enjoy my cigars and would not frequent a casino or nightclub if they did not allow me to smoke. LAX has a no cigar smoking policy and as a result I won't go there.

I haven't vetted this source, but here's a reply to the government study -

Most businesses resist anti-smoking laws even though it seems that bars often do more business once they are smoke free. Casinos seem to be even more intent on remaining a paradise for smokers in the belief that gambling behavior and smoking behavior seem to be linked.

I know a casino in Fallon, NV went smokefree a few years ago, but I don't recall how it fared. Ofcourse its such a small place it would have no real impact on a "real" casino.

The employees must hate smokers after a while. Casino managers cling to the belief that a smoking ban will be tantamount to imposing bankruptcy on them. I'd wager the first major casino to go smoke free will make a mint! Hotels generally went smoke free for economic reasons. Sometime there will be a casino that will really be willing to take the plunge.

On-Edit: Its in Fernley, NV:
http://www.fernleynews.com/PR/Nugget_Opens_111008.html

If a smoke free casino really would make a mint then don't you think someone in Vegas would have done it already? Casinos are in the business of making money, if being the only smoke free casino in Las Vegas would make them more money then they'd do it in a heartbeat. I hear that from non-smokers all the time but there is no proof to back it up. I'd be surprised if someone like Steve Wynn hasn't looked into this and concluded that it would not enhance profits. Casinos spend a lot of money on lighting, carpet patterns, music, aroma etc to create an environment to make the most money. You really don't think that they've put as much thought into smoking vs non-smoking as they do in the carpet pattern?

Quote: JimMorrison

Casinos spend a lot of money on lighting, carpet patterns, music, aroma etc to create an environment to make the most money. You really don't think that they've put as much thought into smoking vs non-smoking as they do in the carpet pattern?

Oh, I would imagine that Steve Wynn and others have addressed the question and that the primary viewpoint has indeed been that of the bottom-line. I would imagine the various consultants have all spewed such facts and figures as are available to them. After due consideration of the various studies, including what is suspected of genetic linkages to financially and sexually risky behavior, it appears the decisions have all been the same. I have no desire to debate variance amongst casino-carpeting consultants or variance amongst smoking-and-gambling consultants. For the nonce, the conventional wisdom is that the financial benefit is to allow smoking or atleast to not be the first to dis-allow smoking. Conventional wisdom is not always correct, however. You may enjoy your cigars and brandy. Others may enjoy chocolate or coffee or other substances. It all varies with dopamine, serotonin and above all, xanthine oxidase genes. As more knowledge is discovered, the consultants may start re-writing their position papers. Fortunately for me, its not much of an issue.

Quote: FleaStiff

Quote: JimMorrison

Casinos spend a lot of money on lighting, carpet patterns, music, aroma etc to create an environment to make the most money. You really don't think that they've put as much thought into smoking vs non-smoking as they do in the carpet pattern?

Oh, I would imagine that Steve Wynn and others have addressed the question and that the primary viewpoint has indeed been that of the bottom-line. I would imagine the various consultants have all spewed such facts and figures as are available to them. After due consideration of the various studies, including what is suspected of genetic linkages to financially and sexually risky behavior, it appears the decisions have all been the same. I have no desire to debate variance amongst casino-carpeting consultants or variance amongst smoking-and-gambling consultants. For the nonce, the conventional wisdom is that the financial benefit is to allow smoking or atleast to not be the first to dis-allow smoking. Conventional wisdom is not always correct, however. You may enjoy your cigars and brandy. Others may enjoy chocolate or coffee or other substances. It all varies with dopamine, serotonin and above all, xanthine oxidase genes. As more knowledge is discovered, the consultants may start re-writing their position papers. Fortunately for me, its not much of an issue.

I don't like brandy at all. I do enjoy Capt and Cokes though.

People have choices of whether they want to smoke or not. People also have choices of whether they want to be in an environment that allows smoke. It seems to me that too many non-smokers want to cram their choices down my throat. If someone has a problem with smoke then don't go to a casino that allows smoking. If enough people feel that way then the market will solve the rest as casinos will enact rules to attract the non-smokers.

Hi, Fleastiff. I'd like to take that wager! lol, I'm sure that if the casino's thought they would make a "mint", by going smoke-free, they would have done it already. (If you still want to wager, I'm sure someone around here can drum up some odds, lol).......thanks Bart

As much as I'd like to think that the legislators had our best interests at heart when they mandated all clubs/bars in Australia (where I'm from) to be smoke free, the cynic in me makes me certain that it was a financial decision that was imposed on legislators to act and, therefore, businesses to make the business decision. And it was all to do with courts awarding damages to employees in workplaces (like clubs/bars) that permitted smoking. I am sure that, barring some special exemption for certain business establishments, that it will be a business decision that the casinos will make to go smoke free because they won't be able to find an insurance company to cover the damages from lawsuits in that specific field. Either that or the casino/business takes it upon themselves to meet the cost of those damages. Or gains an exemption, as mentioned previously.

That said, the debate here has been going on a while and whilst all clubs/bars/casinos are now smoke free there was a period before the mandatory imposition and some clubs/bars voluntarily went smoke free and they did prosper. The smoking rate in our country is down to about 20% so there is/was a huge market out there to be catered for. Of course, just going smoke free isn't going to make your business successful but it does open up a new set of customers for you if you do. Eg, myself and my partner now go out much more frequently because we enjoy the smoke free environment of clubs/bars. If it was the same environment as when I was going out as a young adult, I dare say we would not go out and all of that revenue would be lost to that particular business. I'm sure we'd find somewhere else to spend it but the point is that because the local clubs/bars are smoke free we are happy to go there for drink/meal and it is, thus, a profitable decision for them (regardless of how that decision may have been imposed upon them) to have us as customers.

We were in Vegas last year and even though we were on the 23rd floor at the MGM (beautiful room, can recommend it and worth upgrading to the larger room) we could still smell some of the smoke that probably came up the elevators and, of course, we dreaded walking through all the gaming areas. If there was a smoke free casino in Vegas then it would certainly appeal to us.

Everything is hypothetical until it is done and it isn't necessarily correct to say that if it was a profitable idea that someone would already have done it. Until it looked like becoming a reality nobody here really did it but some tried it ahead of the mandatory imposition and discovered that they could prosper because of it. It may fail in Vegas but it may also succeed even though no-one can see it succeeding now. And the very owners that say now that it won't work will be trumpeting what a bold business decision they made if/when it does. Just like politicians; they take credit for things they didn't necessarily do for the good of their customers/constituents.

Don't know what study you read , but your quoted stats here is all bull on second hand smoke . Stats on smokers probably are more true and accurate , on second hand smoke dangers , BULL____.
As far as I know , there is not one case of even one person ever dying from 2nd hand smoke anywhere . The second hand smoke studies that come out from various organizations are just a SMOKE SCREEN WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO THEM AT ALL . You are born with the Genes that you are dealt and God will do the rest in a person's lifetime . Second hand smoke nay sayers are the biggest crock ever put upon the masses living in the United States , matter of fact , living in the entire world . Just putting my 2-cents worth in here .

Tony/Michigan

My two cents --

I can see second-hand smoke being a concern with 400 patrons in a 500 square-foot bar, but with 2000 patrons in a 100,000 square foot casino? Doesn't seem to compare.

--jim--

Oh boy! A smoking thread.

The US exports billions in tobacco products worldwide.

Asians and other tourists smoke at a much higher percentage per ca pita.

They spend money.

Casinos and Nevada want money.

Gamblers smoke more. They spend money.

Don't count on a smoking ban any time soon.

don't you just love it when some old lady with a cigarette sits down right next to you, when there are hundreds of vacant machines elsewhere? Then, she puts it down in the ash tray and lets it smolder away, and the smoke homes in on you....:-O:

In a perfect world businesses would choose whether to permit smoking according to the percentage of their client base that smoke. For example, if 30% of gamblers smoke, then 30% of casinos would allow smoking. However, given the freedom to choose, it seems just about every business chooses to permit smoking. The free market does not seem to be working in this regard. Not just casinos, but bars and restaurants too. I suspect it is out of a fear of a short-term backlash from smoking customers. Non-smokers could probably do a better job at patronizing non-smoking businesses too.

That said, let me run this idea up the flag pole and see if anybody salutes. I suggest a cap and trade system of smoking permits. Take Las Vegas casinos for example. I’m suggesting it be mandated that half of casinos go non-smoking (or any reasonable percentage). The big corporations like MGM and Harrah’s could choose their half among their properties. The small companies could bid on a limited number of smoking permits, with the proceeds going to the casinos that didn’t get a permit. After that point, the casinos could buy and sell the smoking permits with each other. There would need to be safeguards to ensure that the 50/50 ratio was maintained according to area and quality. This would be much less drastic than a total ban. There would be some short-term shuffling between players and casinos, but in the long-term I don’t see any down side.

Whadaya think? I welcome all comments.

Cap and trade? Interesting concept but I see it as unlikely. I can't really see any incentive to implement the system just as there is probably no pressing reason for a casino to go smoke-free if it's competitors do not.

I suspect that instead the nonsmoking majority will eventually demand legislation banning smoking indoors because they don't like the stink -- rather than because of health concerns from second hand smoke.

We have had the slow progression of smoking restrictions here [in BC Canada] and there were a lot of the doom and gloom "businesses won't survive" statements along with smokers' rights arguments. Currently, smoking is prohibited inside buildings open to the public and has been expanded to within a certain distance of doors even outside the buildings. Businesses appear to have been unaffected. Put simply, a legislated smoking ban is revenue neutral if it applies to all businesses equally.

Friends who smoke have accepted the situation. If they want to smoke they will pop outside for a few minutes [sometimes I'll keep them company -- standing upwind]. Interestingly, they have also become more aware of the spread of the smoke and make every effort to keep it to themselves, even outdoors.

As a reformed cigarette smoker [I will still have the occasional cigar -- outside] it is refreshing not to have to put up with someone else's smoke and my clothes don't stink after going out. It would also be nice not to have someone blowing smoke in my face at the tables in Las Vegas.

Here in the UK ALL Casinos, bars, restaurants, train stations, and other public places are now non smoking. As a smoker i find it a damn inconvenience but nothing more. I always considered myself a considerate smoker. I never smoked in a restaurant. I never smoke in front of children. I believe as an adult i should be entitled to choice, as should other adults, which is why it really peeved me when the legislation was passed regardless of public opinion.

However back to the Casino. In our Casino, owned by one of the 2 biggest operators in the Uk, the anti smoking regulation has made little difference overall, and neither has the economic crisis. We are ahead of projected earnings and targets.

If all casinos in Vegas were forced to go smoke free, and provided smoking areas for the clientele, then i dont think it would affect the numbers too much. Seperate smoking and non smoking areas would probably be the easiest way to keep everyone happy.

Thanks for the comments about Canada and the UK. I think the same would happen in Vegas, and has happened in other states. My cap and trade proposal I believe would be revenue positive. The smokers would have casinos they are made to feel welcome, with no non-smokers fanning smoke away or blowing it back. The non-smokers would have non-smoking casinos. In other words, everybody is happy, and more business from both sides would be induced. If the non-smoking casinos don’t do as well financially, the market would ensure that they would be appropriately subsidized by the smoking casinos via trading smoking permits. I’m not saying it will ever actually happen. It is just an idea to put on the table. If the casinos don’t want to do it voluntarily, then just wait until the Nevada voters pass a no-smoking initiative for casinos, as we recently did for bars that serve food and convenience stores.

I don't know if you can monetize a smoking policy. Casinos don't really know what the value of allowing smoking is any more than they know the value of banning it. They are afraid of the unknown and so hesitant to act. They know they will annoy someone no matter what.

Most casinos have an open floorplan for surveillance and crowd control purposes and airwalls are expensive. The likely outcome is that casinos will await legislation because then they are blameless.

The concept of a smoking bar/casino might work as would simply designating areas of the casino as non-smoking and cranking up some of the ventillation fans. Once the casinos see a sharp change in their bottom line, they will sit up and take notice. Formal trading of smoking licenses might indeed work once the fundamental income factors were known.

Ontario casinos are smoke-free, so the Niagara region makes a nice case study for smoke-free casinos.

There are 2 casinos on the Canadian side of the falls (Casino Niagara and Fallsview Casino), while there is 1 on the American side (Seneca Niagara Casino), all within a few miles of each other. The Canadian casinos are smoke-free, the American casino is very smokey.

I found 2007 annual revenues for both:
combined Canadian (smoke-free): ~$643 Million CDN
American (smoking allowed): ~$593 Million USD

At 2007 exchange rates, the American revenue is higher. I couldn't find the actual profits for the Canadian Niagara casinos.

The Ontario government believes a significant portion of the Canadian revenue is from American tourists. This might serve as evidence that a smoke-free casino could survive in Vegas.

Perhaps a micro-comparison might help with this question: Red Rock has, I believe, two totally separate Bingo areas. One is entirely smoke free and is separately ventilated. I don't know if any utilization statistics exist but it might show what is preferred. Aleast amongst the Bingo crowd.

That is true; the Red Rock has a separate bingo room for smokers. The walls on two sides are glass, so the smokers can still see what is going on. I live just a few miles from the Red Rock, and have played bingo there several times. There is never a shortage of space in either section. I would roughly estimate that the smoking section is 25% of the space, and gets 40% of the players. I would be interested as which type of player buys more tickets. I wonder if casinos resist going non-smoking because smokers simply bet more.

As a non-smoker, I applaud what the Red Rock did. At the Suncoast, by comparison, there are smoking and non-smoking sides of the room. Trust me, the smoke finds it way to the non-smoking side. The Pala casino tried a glass walled-off room in their main casino. However, when I was there recently I see they removed it. Perhaps smoker apartheid works better in bingo rooms.

If I can change the topic, have any smokers reading this tried the electronic cigarettes? If so, how did they work out for you?

Quote: Wizard

If I can change the topic, have any smokers reading this tried the electronic cigarettes? If so, how did they work out for you?

I tried a very low-end brand "eHealth Cigarettes," FWIW. The problem is their cartridges have no nicotine. For that I can use a regular unlit cigarette just as well :) I would like to try a brand with nicotine in it.

As to smokers and casinos, we'd still gamble if smoking were banned, of course, just as we still go to restaurants and fly in airplanes. But here's what you would see: smokers leaving the gambling table every hour or two in order to get a smoke outside.

In some casinos this may not matter. In others the smoker would find his place taken by someone else when he returns. Worse yet the smoker may ask the dealer to hold his spot. So the table would go for 10 to 20 minutes with an empty, unproductive spot.

Casinos in Ontario, Canada have been smoke free for a few years now and it impacted business somewhat. In Niagara Falls, for example, players have the choice to gamble at smoke-free Casino Niagara and Fallsview (and pay for drinks) on the Canadian side or go into the smoke pit at Seneca Niagara (and drink for free) on the American side. Personally, being a non-smoker, I won't set foot into Seneca Niagara. There have been arguments whether it was the strength of the Canadian dollar or new passport requirements that affected business as well. I imagine that the choice of smoking does affect a person's decision heavily on where they gamble. I also imagine that if an entire jurisdiction is smoke free, a person's decision to gamble will not be impacted by their personal habits.

Quote: tbadvertising

As far as I know , there is not one case of even one person ever dying from 2nd hand smoke anywhere . The second hand smoke studies that come out from various organizations are just a SMOKE SCREEN WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO THEM AT ALL . You are born with the Genes that you are dealt and God will do the rest in a person's lifetime . Second hand smoke nay sayers are the biggest crock ever put upon the masses living in the United States , matter of fact , living in the entire world . Just putting my 2-cents worth in here .
Tony/Michigan

It's pretty obvious that if first hand smoking kills you because of all the chemicals inhaled (which certainly has been proven), that second hand smoke will also have a detrimental (yet lesser) effect. A smoker's lungs certainly do not absorb all of the chemicals before exhaling and the smoke on the other end of the burning cigarette is not water vapor. Certainly, the incidence of lung disease / lung cancer will be lesser because the concentration of those chemicals are lower in the air. And the purpose of smoking bans in the casinos is not necessarily there to protect the players, who have the choice to enter the casinos - it's to protect the workers who have to breathe the air all day - a workplace safety issue.

The Reward Deficiency Syndrome paper by Blum, Cull, etc. American Scientist 84:132 suggested that those with the A1 allele in the D2 receptor gene have a 74 percent chance of developing one of the Reward Deficiency disorders. They classify smoking as an addictive disorder and pathological gambling as a compulsive disorder. There is a great deal that seems objectionable in the paper but its considered good support for the notion that smokers comprise a large subset of gamblers and that a smoking ban would have a significantly greater impact on a casino than on an ordinary business.

True that a smoking ban would hurt casino business. Is that a bad thing? In Canada, you can't smoke at the casinos. In the US across the border (be it in Sault Ste. Marie, Detroit, Cornwall, or Niagara Falls), you can (you can also drink for free as well). Certainly, when Seneca Niagara Casino (in Niagara Falls, NY) opened, it took a great deal of business away from the Ontario casinos because of that. Fallsview (in Niagara Falls, Ontario) continued to be profitable during that time.

Don't they already have designated smoking-free gambling areas? I know they do here at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Fort Lauderdale. Hasn't that become a relatively common practice? I would imagine that entirely smoke free casinos would have huge problems financially. You've just ostracized a large portion of gamblers if that was the case. I'm sure there is a middle ground being pursued (ie, non-smoking sections) similar to what they did in restaurants. However, I don't think casino's will go further in following to non-smoking entirely. People are much more likely to deal with walking through or gampling in smoking areas than to sit and eat a meal in smoke.

Quote: bobbyseg

Don't they already have designated smoking-free gambling areas? I know they do here at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Fort Lauderdale. Hasn't that become a relatively common practice? I would imagine that entirely smoke free casinos would have huge problems financially. You've just ostracized a large portion of gamblers if that was the case. I'm sure there is a middle ground being pursued (ie, non-smoking sections) similar to what they did in restaurants. However, I don't think casino's will go further in following to non-smoking entirely. People are much more likely to deal with walking through or gampling in smoking areas than to sit and eat a meal in smoke.

Recent trip to Mohegan Sun definitely featured smoke-free areas.

Quote: tbadvertising

Don't know what study you read , but your quoted stats here is all bull on second hand smoke . Stats on smokers probably are more true and accurate , on second hand smoke dangers , BULL____.
As far as I know , there is not one case of even one person ever dying from 2nd hand smoke anywhere . The second hand smoke studies that come out from various organizations are just a SMOKE SCREEN WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO THEM AT ALL . You are born with the Genes that you are dealt and God will do the rest in a person's lifetime . Second hand smoke nay sayers are the biggest crock ever put upon the masses living in the United States , matter of fact , living in the entire world . Just putting my 2-cents worth in here .

Tony/Michigan

American Cancer Society's Report on Second Hand Smoke

I couldn't find a libertarian tilt to anyone here so I guess I'll chime in. Only the person who started this forum seems to be an authoritarian a-hole who wants to force casinos to change, most of you were just throwing out random factoids so please don't take offense to what I say.

If anyone here thinks that casinos have NOT done the math or have a personal bias towards smoking over making a good business decision, you are full of it. The entire casino industry is gigantic, and for everyone to be colluding to keep smoking in casinos for whatever reason would not only be stupid, but illegal. These people have decided that (in general) even though smokers are a smaller portion of the population it is a smarter business decision to have smoking (for whatever reason you want to throw in there). For anyone to think the government should come in to a private business's venue and tell them what (might) be best for their business and what (might) be best for all their customers is a good thing, then I think socialist Europe/Canada might be for you.

Finally, if you don't want to go gambling in a smoky environment then don't go. I'm willing to tolerate it (and sometimes join in if I feel like it) rather than sit back with these secondhand smoking studies that are bs. Yes I understand smoking has been banned indoors in most of the modern world, my tirade stands for that as well.

Smoker and {mostly} non-drinker - a few drinks per *year*. I'm pretty much resigned to smoking being banned from casinos one day. I've started using "snus" (tobacco in a pouch, not dip) which you can use anywhere and not need a spit can.

So let's say you anti-smoking zealots get your wish - no more smoking in any casino. If it goes that far, then I hope that *drinking* is banned in all casinos next. Drunken behavior really, really annoys me. Sloppy, drooling, vomiting drunks are repulsive.

It's hard to find good, solid data, but from several sources (google "alcohol related injuries") I was able to cobble together some interesting alcohol stats. 85,000 alcohol related fatalaties per year. That's 233 per day. That's almost *two* 737's crashing every day. 400,000 alcohol related auto injuries per year. Couldn't find any info on non-auto alcohol related injuries, but would it surprise anyone if it's at least 400,000? Fighting, falling, and any type of alcohol related behavior injuries not involving an automobile.

Now I know some of you are saying "Why ban it in casinos? Injuries and fatalies due to drunks are most likely to occur outside of a casino!". Ah-ha! Perhaps we should ban *ALL* drinking, everywhere. This way I can safely drive down the road without worry that some drunk will kill/injure me in a collision. Welcome to the new Nanny-States of America. We will continue to ban things that are bad for anyone until there's no fun anymore, just like the Founding Fathers intended (I know because I read a book about how it's all a conspiracy by big tobacco and big alcohol and big mammas).

There's a huge difference between smoking and drinking. First, smoking causes between 400,000 to 430,000 deaths per year in the United States, a factor of five greater than alcohol. Second hand smoke affects workers who cannot get away from the direct smoke. When Ontario enacted laws banning smoking in restaurants, they had to take on casinos as well. Very few dealers and casino workers get injured by drunks. The positive effect is that the working conditions in bars, restaurants, and casinos are far better.

And gee whiz, use some reason when it comes to the "second hand BS". The pollution that comes from cigarette smoke that is breathed in is the *same* as what is in the air. Perhaps the concentration is less, but it goes to stand that long term exposure to this stuff would have the same effect as direct smoking.

At the same time, I absolutely agree that drinking should be curbed in casinos and casinos should be fined heavily (1) for letting patrons get drunk (2) allowing drunk people to get into their cars after leaving the casino. These laws are already here in Ontario, which is why they make you pay for drinks here. I've had a friend here be cut off by the casino after about 5 pints and I am sure that security was making sure that the friend didn't get into a car after leaving. I also think that enforcement and penalties should be stepped up against drunk drivers.

Ban drinking?

Didn't they try that about 80 or 90 years ago?

I just returned from Beau Rivage in Biloxi. Nice hotel and nice open casino, but the smoke is horrendous. All of my clothes stink after 1 day, and even sleeping is affected. And BR is great when compared to the Hard Rock next door which has a serious fog in it. This is not because someone is smoking right next to you. The first day I didn't see anyone smoking anywhere around me, and yet I still reeked when I got to the room.
When I play in Vegas, I don't notice the smoke as much. Sure, if the player next to me lights up, and is not ultra careful, then I still get some smoke, but overall it doesn't really bother me there.

Yes, I have a choice of entering the casino, and obviously, I chose to do so, but I would relish a chance to go someplace and play in a completely smoke free casino. I also agree with the argument that alcohol should be banned as drunks are a pain to put up with in the casino. Has anyone ever had a good session at a craps table with a drunk present? You know the kind, always making late bets, generally when the dice are already in the air, and of course, never knowing where their bets are on the table, and arguing every payout is wrong, etc. And for whatever reason, the drunker they are, the more they think multiple come bets are the way to play the game, except they have no idea how a come bet works, and likely would not be able to figure if they were sober.
I don't believe alcohol should be banned, but I do believe casinos should be required to prevent drunk patrons from wagering money or interrupting games, and infringing on the enjoyment of other patrons. Of course, this rule, I expect would have an affect on the bottom line. I have to believe more often than not, the casino winds up with the drunk's money........

So where is the smoking vs smoke free casino poll ?

Take a flight to Buffalo and I'll take you to the Falls where the casinos are smoke free...

Oh, Canada!

Recently made a trip to the fairly new French Lick Casino (Indiana). While its not a large casino, they did have a substantially sized non-smoking game room. In the non-smoking room there was 1 Craps table, probably about 10 card tables and a roulette table or two. It was a Saturday night, and it was pretty busy in the non-smoking area. Had to wait to get a spot at the craps table, while there were open spots out in the smoking area. That's the first non-smoking gambling experience I've had, and it was enjoyable.

The only downside was you had to walk through the main casino smoking area to get to it.

Come to the Rockies! All of our mining town casinos are smoke free.

Here is a recent article from the Reno Gazette Journal (April 11th 2010):


For those that would rather not review the entire article some tidbits that stand out to me:

"Revenues declined by an estimated 20 percent ($400 million) in Illinois casinos after a smoking ban was imposed, according to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis."

"Revenues from smoking areas with slots outdid non-smoking areas with slots by 60 to 185 percent at seven Pennsylvania casinos, according to a state of Pennsylvania study in late 2008."

"A smoking ban in Nevada could be more devastating because of tribal gaming, primarily in California, casino executives said. They are concerned any smoking ban that could possibly be imposed on Nevada casinos -- either a state or federal ban -- would not apply to tribal casinos since those casinos are under the control of sovereign Indian nations."

"California's tribal casinos, which are exempt from the state's smoking restrictions, are one of the few public places in California where smoking still is legal. Of the almost 60 casinos operating in California, 98 percent allow smoking, according to a Stanford University study released in February."

I'm a cigar smoker, but I'm a very considerate one. I always search out a low populated table or VP bank if I plan to light up. I dislike cigarette smoke as well, but as that last blurb points out - until the Federal Government can ban smoking in Indian Casinos I don't think Vegas or Reno will consider a full fledge ban.

It's the same here in WA state - Indian casinos are exempt from the statewide public ban on smoking. I appreciate those that have seen no revenue impact for non-smoking establishments, but apparently that is NOT the case for all venues.

Definitely a smoking ban is not revenue neutral when there is a jurisdiction nearby that does allow it. The smoking ban decimated Casino Niagara here when the ban came into effect, with most of the traffic going to Seneca Niagara (a 3 minute drive + border crossing away). Falls Management Company mitigated the effect by taking away most of the table games and moving alot of traffic over to its much more successful Fallview sister. However, I would say that a smoking ban is revenue neutral when no other choice is given. Take Casino Rama for example, in the middle of our fair province, that has not suffered at all because no other choice was available.

Certainly a smoking ban on Nevada casinos would have a negative effect as part of the joy for smokers is the ability to light up at the table without having to worry about a ban in their home jurisdiction.

The following is taken from elsewhere on the forum:
"...In my state, the only public place you can smoke now is in casinos! I was there tonight and some jerk sat next to me with one of those black cigarettes. In less than a minute my throat was raw and my eyes were watering. I took my roulette card and started waving it back in his face. He said 'Does this bother you?" I replied that I love being poisoned usually, but not tonight. He got up and stomped away. I'm sorry, but this has got to end eventually. I just heard today that Michael Douglas has throat cancer from being a chain smoker for decades. I mean, get a clue. "

There are several aspects to this question of smoking. Social, political, economic and perhaps above all, genetic!

As far as most bars and restaurants are concerned these oft-feared smoking bans are often economic boons not banes. Yet for Vegas things are claimed to be different and do actually appear to be different in fact. Drive by Zodies and see that great big "Smoker's Welcome" banner and perhaps more than just smoking is relevant to our inquiries. (For those not quite so "in the know" Zodies prides itself on not only being Smoking friendly but also being accepting of a variety of alternate lifestyles. Its a gay, bisexual, swingers, trans-sexuals, etc. bar. Is it a mere coincidence that it welcomes smokers or is it linked to the other aspects as well? Clearly there are links to smoking and schizophrenia. What about smoking and other behaviors? It may be more than just a matter of cognitive awareness. After all, no one actually ever really believed those Tobacco Company claims about risks. Everybody knew smoking was unhealthy behavior and that it didn't much matter about brands or filters or flavors or anything. Hype is hype and its easily recognized as hype. It just isn't easily acknowledged to be hype.

It is clear that gambling and smoking do seem to be linked for some. I do not smoke or really like to be around smoke. I've referred to smokers as nicotine addicts. However I am aware that some studies indicate a genetic link to a Reward Deficiency Syndrome and that in some aspects asking someone to quit smoking makes about as much sense as asking them to quit having a certain hair color.

Publicly acceptable behavior varies as does legislation. In Colonial America it was by no means improper for a homeowner to fondle an indentured servant's breasts. In addition to the obvious drives involved there was also an economic incentive for him to do so since he obtained an extra year of her indentured servitude for each pregnancy. Intervention in such situations by local authorities would be limited to extreme situations wherein the tax burden on the public for the support of bastards was too great but there was no moral condemnation. Today no one much cares about legitimacy of birth but openly fondling employees is not permitted in our society. Not only do our laws change but the underlying values often change.

Smoking legislation if often compared to the Volstead Act that prohibited alcohol. Yet it must be remembered that neither beer nor hard liquor were really opposed by the American public. Oh sure, the various rabble rousing extremists existed but Manhattan had hundreds of grocery stores that featured attractive young ladies demonstrating how to buy raisin cake and turn it into homemade booze. It would be the equivalent today of having eighty percent of our supermarkets having young ladies demonstrate to shoppers how to cook and inject heroin. Legislation is not always representative of a populations desires. Its usually representative of the desires of a special interest group.

In Colonial America it was unlawful for a Connecticut woman to bake a mince pie. Legislation applied to the woman's activities within her own home but did not apply to the male's activities in transporting or consuming a mince pie in public. Today we no longer tolerate such arbitrary legislation so skewed to certain classifications of people. Or do we? We ban smoking by those who are biochemically driven to such behavior as well as by those who have no compulsions but merely a mild desire to smoke.

For most of American history, legislating smoking behavior even in confined places would have been unthinkable. In a mining boom town in Colorado the adoption of a practice of washing plates in a public restaurant was unusual. Today we would be utterly shocked to be served a meal on the same unwashed plate a prior customer had used. Health concerns are magnified by our increased population density and the increased mobility of our population. Our increased reliance on a variety of insurance schemes induces us to invade private behaviors with ever increasingly intrusive legislation. Smoking in casinos annoys me. Casino owners often try to market themselves to non-smokers by providing both smoking and non-smoking Bingo rooms, but they don't try to ban smokers because smoking and gambling are simply too often linked and casinos do not profit by banning their would be customers.

As communities seek casinos in a desperate measure to keep politicians in office and receiving their bloated salaries (oh, excuse me, I forgot. Its to "balance the budget"), we have to accept that for whatever reasons of biochemistry, genetics or greed, smoking and casinos will continue to be linked.

Yes mohegansun has smoke free areas for slots, and tables $10 games but for any serious table player $50 to $100 you need to be the first one to the table to ask for a no smoking sign. And don't get me started about the player lounges, what a joke!

When the California indoor smoking ban went into effect several years ago, the LA card barns screamed and cried and moaned that it would destroy their business. What actually happened was that business increased by more than 20%, as many people who had wanted to play poker but didn't want to inhale pigarette smoke poured in to play.

Many moons ago, I was at Harvey's in Lake Tahoe. It was unusual for a casino to have any non-smoking areas, but they had dedicated the second floor to the tabacco averse. There was a nice a crowd, and it was great to not have a burning death stick on the rail next to you, but putting the non-smokers on the second level (which was more of a glorified balcony overlooking the main floor) was kind of odd, since a large cloud of death still found its way up there.

Buildings were not designed and constructed with a view toward later-adopted smoking regulations or practices. Hotels that adopt non-smoking policies usually do so for reasons of cost involved in cleaning and repairing items, not convenience to non-smoking guests.

Often non-smoking sections in restaurants are only available by transiting the smoking section. Its only later designed casinos that have HVAC systems capable of separating smokers from non smokers. The use of a glass wall and HVAC equipment has made a smoking bingo room and a non-smoking bingo room capable of actually working properly.

Many businesses do find smoking bans are economically beneficial to them. I imagine such bans allow a shift in their customer base. Even people who want a smoke free work atmosphere may still visit a good cigar bar from time to time. A cigarette used to be a means of making a socially acceptable approach. Now there is not need for any such artificial devices.

I won't sit at a BJ table if I have to sit right next to a smoker.

If I go to an empty BJ table (or maybe just one person playing), I ask the dealer to make it a non-smoking table. I haven't had any issues with it, and have received "Thank yous" from several dealers.

Here in St. Louis we just got a smoking ban effective 1/1/2011 in both the city and county. However, one of the main exceptions is for Casino floors, so there won't be any impact.

I know that 2-3 years ago Illinois passed an indoor smoking ban, so maybe one way to check it's impact would be to look at the revenues for the Casino Queen, Alton Belle, and other Illinois casinos to see what happened to their revenue after that took effect.

Personally, as long as they still allow cigar smoking in strip clubs, I'm set!

CDC published a study showing casinos that allow smoking vs not causing harm to employees and customers.

Incredibly obvious no additional study was needed stuff, but I’d think a published federal government study might impact an adjustment in basic federal workplace safety laws.

I can hear an argument for small businesses where people aren’t impacted at scale, but businesses with employment at this scale…there’s no reasonable argument imo that it should be legal to maintain an environment not critical to the business that knowingly and willingly causes fatal diseases among some % of employees.

Basic decency in corporate citizenship is generally legally required across all industries, it’s beyond time to end that exception for casinos here imo.

Quote: mcallister3200

CDC published a study showing casinos that allow smoking vs not causing harm to employees and customers.

Incredibly obvious no additional study was needed stuff, but I’d think a published federal government study might impact an adjustment in basic federal workplace safety laws.

Yet another "study" for no good reason. We know there is danger in secondhand smoke, why do we need a "study?" Oh, yeah, need something to spend our tax dollars on and job justification for some CDC paper pushers.

The states especially are addicted to tobacco money. What would like to see a "study" of is how much money the states take in from what they know is a harmful product. We had the Master Settlement Agreement almost 30 years ago because of all the costs the states supposedly had over tobacco. How hooked have states become on that money?

I hate smoking. A LOT. But I think conceptually the casino smoking bans might be wrong. Every potential job seeker knows there is smoking in the casino. Unless they’ve been living under a rock they are aware that second hand smoke has health concerns. There is no requirement that anyone works in a casino with second hand smoke. Working midnight shift is bad for your health. Drinking sugared soda is bad for your health. Being a cop is bad for your health.

Above being said, I’m selfish enough that I would be extremely happy if my local casino had smoking banned……

Quote: SOOPOO

I hate smoking. A LOT. But I think conceptually the casino smoking bans might be wrong. Every potential job seeker knows there is smoking in the casino. Unless they’ve been living under a rock they are aware that second hand smoke has health concerns. There is no requirement that anyone works in a casino with second hand smoke. Working midnight shift is bad for your health. Drinking sugared soda is bad for your health. Being a cop is bad for your health.


link to original post

While obviously true you don’t think it’s overly idealistic to not have any base safety related requirements of employers?. Are you suggesting it’s a good idea to get rid of all OSHA laws?

Sometimes people have got themselves into a position where their only options at the time are less than optimal, like do something bad for your health or collect from the government. I’m a pessimist but I think well over 90% of employment decisions the general population makes could be described as lesser of two evils or only non optimal choices available.

Quote: mcallister3200

[
Sometimes people have got themselves into a position where their only options at the time are less than optimal, like do something bad for your health or collect from the government. I’m a pessimist but I think well over 90% of employment decisions the general population makes could be described as lesser of two evils or only non optimal choices available.
link to original post

I mostly agree. However, a huge percentage of LV casino workers are transplants from other states/countries. Presumably they moved to LV to work in that industry. Not LV natives that couldn’t find anything else